COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
The world’s greatest scientists insist that they don’t see this.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
This will get old Blow torch Reggie’s knickers in a knot!!
I bet the rowers are terribly upset they aren’t still in the arctic too show the world the extent of the GLO-BULL warming.
Expect an improved version to bring 2013 down
Didn’t they already launch the improved version, about a month ago?
Several months ago. Unfortunately, DMI’s new version only shows individual years back to 2009. The new version, just like the old one, had 2013 > 2009…and it’s one of the few metrics that shows them in that order (most had 2013 slightly below 2009).
-Scott
Our Arctic sea ice alarmist friends have been deafeningly quiet.
Letter I sent to NSIDC
Hi, My name is Chris Beal and citizen of the united states.
I have been doing some research on the effects that Ice Breaking(IB) ships do to the Arctic Ice cap and have become more frequent and larger since the early 1980’s. I also found one IB Ship that opened/weakened a large part of the sea ice by Antarctica in July-August of 2013 by following the IB ships tracking signal and comparing them to satellite images. IB ship name Nathaniel B. Palmer — WBP3210
An Article was published in 2012 on the matter and the numbers do not take into the account the Wakes from large ice breaking ships, the melting out that occurs faster near the IB tracks, Hot water Discharge from Nuclear powered IB Ships and the salt water that is able to melt snow, freshwater ice on the sea ice near the ships tracks. My feeling is that ice breaking ships are more destructive to the sea ice then noted in the article. Also IB Ships that break up ice in shallower waters closer to the coast line create much faster melting and open water. Open water and wind create waves the melt sea ice much faster. Most people that study the arctic sea ice know the when the melt season ends most of the new ice that grows forms on the edges of the first year or multi year ice not in open water or along the coast lines.
The 2012 article states ” An icebreaker cruising through the ice for 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and leaving an ice-free wake of 10 meters (33 feet) would open an area of water 10 square kilometers (3.9 square miles) over the entire cruise. In contrast, the Arctic sea ice cover decreases by an average of over 9 million square kilometers or 3.5 million square miles each year during its melt season—an area larger than the contiguous United States. In total, researchers estimate that the number of icebreakers traversing the Arctic at any given time is usually less than three. So, Meier said, “The actual contribution is miniscule—only one part in a million of the total ice cover.”
“Ice Free wake of 33′”, Well the wake from a large IB ship will break up the ice much wider then 33′. Wakes from large IB Ships travel far distances under the ice creating cracks where they hit thick sea ice bergs. Also when the wakes from IB ships meet waves that were created by open water wind they will collide and put massive cracks leading to more open water.
Info on wakes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake
2012 Article
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/04/12/are-icebreakers-changing-the-climate/
The article also states that there are only 3 IB ships at one time in the Arctic. That is not true from the what I discovered this year.
Almost all Buoys are moved each year by an IB ship because of drifting sea ice and Research IB ships for oil and core samples are also increasing.
Russia has opened up shipping lanes to large container ships on their side this year. IB Ships were escorting them to break up sea ice for their safe journeys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/europe/russia-preparing-patrols-of-arctic-shipping-lanes.html?_r=0
My estimates are, IB ships cause from .5% to 2% ice loss in the Arctic each year. Now if you add the up and go with 1%, over a 10 year period you end up with 10% less ice per decade because Ice grows Ice.
I would like to know if you feelings have changed since the 2012 article and if any new articles will be coming out on Icebreaking Ships and effects on Sea Ice.
Thank you.
Russia is investing heavily in very large, nuclear icebreakers, so there must be hope that shipping channels can be kept open. However I have my doubts the long-term effect will be less ice, because open water has what I suppose you could call a “negative feedback,” and creates colder water, which eventually allows ice to form more swiftly.
Last winter a big gale had a long, curving fetch over the Beaufort Sea, creating such a strain on the ice that a series of huge leads (cracks) opened up. These leads were hundreds of miles long and many miles wide in places. In other words, much bigger than any icebreaker could make.
Though, because it was February and forty below, the open water froze over swiftly, the new ice was thinner, and the Alarmists were all a-tither because they assumed the thinner ice would be swift to melt in the summer. That was one of the main reasons some were predicting the Pole would be ice-free last summer. However, though the thin ice remained obvious on the “thickness maps” all summer, and though there were two big gales up there, no such break-up occurred. The jury is still out on why it didn’t occur, but I think the water beneath the ice was chilled more by being exposed in February, keeping the air above the ice colder, and also negating a dynamic where summer storms “cause up-welling of warmer water.” (Warmer water can’t up-well if it doesn’t exist.)
Also a change in patterns kept the ice from being “flushed out” through Fram Strait. In any case, if a series of huge gales can’t reduce the ice, can a fleet of huge icebreakers reduce it?
Besides opening a lead a mile wide, winds can bring the two sides of a lead clapping together again, even when the open water in the lead has frozen over with a foot or two of new ice. The thinner ice in the lead gets crunched and mangled and heaped up as a pressure ridge, which in some cases can be 30 feet tall, and, because 9/10th of floating ice is under water, such a big ridge theoretically extends a root 270 feet downwards. (I think Russian and American subs used to play hide-and-seek among such roots.)
I imagine that, if you were in a ship following an icebreaker in the man-made lead icebreakers create, and Mother Nature decided to clap the two sides of the lead shut, your progress would grind to a swift halt. Therefore it is unlikely ships will attempt the Northeast Passage at winter, or even during the summer during especially icy years, unless they develop freighters that have reinforced hulls and that have their own ice-breaking capacity.
All that heat at the bottom of the ocean is forcing colder waters to the top, or something.
Squirrel!
It’s Arctic amplification at work.
First Place! And Antarctic sea ice is at record levels! Antarctica is definitely first place as well. We are going to need to have a playoff, no a World Series, between the two poles… to determine the Big Ice Winner! By the way, Caleb has opened up a new continually updated, detailed post on the Arctic saga: http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/arctic-sea-ice-recovery-diary-the-deepening-twilight/
First Place! Awesome!
In the winner’s circle!
Thanks.
Alarmist spin: “2013 is the 9th lowest September sea ice in history.”